Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 977082,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/977082/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 210,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Maanzo, for greater clarity, Parliament may legislate for the republic on any matter. But the same Constitution has created delineations. Parliament as per Article 93 is both the National Assembly and the Senate. But the same Constitution has clearly said that on matters to do with standards as far as relates to roads and the kind of things we are discussing, is a function of the national Government. Remember, there is no law the Senate can pass without this House unlike this House which is vested with immense authority to legislate and enact laws. Article 95 of the Constitution is very clear that the National Assembly enacts as opposed to Article 96 which says that the Senate participates in the legislative process. They are just participants. If, in the process of participating, somebody introduces a Bill… I am just wondering whether the Report was brought to my attention. If the Report of the Committee was for the Bill to be rejected for the reasons that it is seeking to provide mechanisms for doing that which is already provided for in other laws, even that alone is unconstitutional because that is not the way you make laws. If you want to make a law about something which already exists in another law, then you must propose to either amend that other law or delete specific provisions of that other existing law. Otherwise, if you cannot do that, you provide that there will be grey, red and black and you find that there are already provisions for it and then you say there will be red, green and black, and you purport to be making different laws. It is not right. We will be wasting time. I do not know. I would want to stand this down on account of what has been raised by Hon. Christopher Omulele as supported by a few of you, so that I can have an opportunity to look at the Report by the Committee alongside the constitutional issues that have been raised by Hon. Omulele. Otherwise, it may be unnecessary that the House will spend a whole afternoon discussing a Bill which is so defective. Even if we are going to reject it, is it worth the effort really? It is not a Bill that we are going to say we are going to amend because it is not possible now to propose amendments. It is the Bill itself which should have proposed to amend those other existing provisions. We will be acting in vain and I think it is not fair that the House should act in vain."
}